Opposition vs. Loyal Opposition

Years spend observing both the American and Canadian political systems I’ve noticed that there is a concept that is not as firmly embraced in the American system as it is in Canada…the concept of loyal opposition.

 

In Canada the parties who do not form the government are not just in opposition, but they are the loyal opposition.  In my civics courses in junior high and in high school we were taught that the loyal opposition is not to oppose legislation for the sake of opposing the government. Rather they hold the government accountable and via balanced critiquing advocate for strengthening legislation for overall sake of the nation. The loyal opposition may well strongly oppose one measure while at other times somewhat supporting another while advocating for amendments. The opposition is to serve the government through its opposition. The daily question and answer periods where members of the loyal opposition can arise to directly ask questions of the government ministers and Prime Minister (or Premier) is a critical component of being part of the loyal opposition.

 

Being in loyal opposition is not a game whereby an opposing party using techniques and maneuvers to win a victory or opposes an idea just because it is advocated by the other party. Nor should the party in power use maneuvers to dismiss ideas from the opposition or worse, to marginalize the opposition, is contrary to the loyal opposition concept.

 

In America Congress is held in low esteem. I would say that the major power brokers, the major lobbyists, should be held in the same low esteem. There is good reason to hold Congress and lobbyists in low regard when the nation sees time and time legislation and ideas rejected, opposed and dismissed as horrible when only months to a few years before, the criticizing party and individual first proposed the idea and they are now rejecting it because the idea is now supported by the other party. That is not governing. That is game playing. Trying to win a game for the sake of the party, versus trying to serve the people and bring about the best possible legislation possible for the nation as a whole.

 

What would Congress look like, and how would they act if the loyal concept was integral to the process? I wonder what damaged has been done by the concept not being part of the governing process.

A Two Party Political System and Extremism

There are a host of structural differences between the American and Canadian political systems due to the difference structures, America being republican with the direct election of the chief executive official and Canada being parliamentary with the indirect election of the chief executive.  Beyond the structural and resulting differences thereby created by the different structures, one of the differences, not created by the founding structure but which has evolved and become well settled is that in the United States there is two party system. In the United States, while a third party is theoretically possible both regionally and nationally, due to the entrenchment of the two party system with rules designed to hinder the formation of a statewide or regional third party, the rise of a third party is functionally impossible short of a split taking place in one of the two current parties.

 

By contrast, in Canada, and in Great Britain and Australia, multiple parties with regional and national appeal are not only possible but are common. Three or four options is such a common occurrence in Canada that having candidates on the ballet from three major parties is taken for granted by Canadians. While it is theoretically possible for Canada to have dozens of parties with wide national or provincial appeal, having more than three or four nation-wide or provincial-wide parties having broad appeal is rare for when a party becomes too small its effective voice for impacting change is so minimal that the party thereby ceases to be viewed as a viable option.  

 

A common argument for two having only to parties is that it ensures the winning candidate and party has the support of the majority of the citizenry. Such reasoning is based upon math, but we it does not mean the victorious candidate or party has a mandate. We should not fool ourselves into thinking this way for as evidenced in the current political environment few winning candidates truly has the support of the majority. The 2013 gubernatorial election in Virginia is an example of where many voters vote not for the candidate but against the other candidate and for lesser of two poor choices.

 

This dynamic of voting for the lesser of two evils or poor candidates is more than rarity in America politics due to the extremes having strong sway and/or those with deep money yielding a victor in the local primaries who the general public cannot support. Well motivated organized extremes can readily have significant impact in a primary given that only a limited number of centrist voters become engaged in the primary process. Hence, a small group, a hundred or so, which are well organized and solidly funded, can color the results far beyond what their numbers would at face value indicate.

 

While in any system a drive to an extreme can occur, a two party system is particularly prone so such a drift. The extremes on the both left and right push their parties to away from being more centrist, and thereby leaving voters voting against a candidate than for a candidate, the lesser of two evils rather than embracing a candidate who reflects for the most part the views of the major of their constituents.  I like other’s too often find myself voting for a candidate that is not close to where I stand. And there are times when I’ve voted against someone who is closer to my economic and social views but cannot support that candidate because the party at large has become too far removed from my position. Hence, in a two party system, the choice sometimes comes down to going o the devil you least dislike.  

 

Unfortunately, when elected the individual and party come into power they think they have a mandate to do some more extreme things when no such a mandate exists except within the fringe that gave them the primary victory.

 

An ongoing via third party tends be a brake against extremes heavily influencing the other two parties for if the left of one party takes their party too far to the left while the right of the second party takes the second in the opposite direction, it is highly likely they will discover that they have ceded power to the more centrist party. For a party to remain on the extreme too long invites ongoing marginalization or even extinction as the majority of the voters will look to the party or party that is towards the center. For a party’s survival, the pragmatic center will ultimately pull their party away from the extreme.  Voters will more frequently be voting for a candidate they can affirm rather than choosing between the lesser of three evils.   

Keystone and the Decision to Depend On Mideast Oil

Though America has said it wants to rely less on imported oil from the troubled Middle East, it is a shame that America in the Keystone decision has elected not to buy oil from its economically and politically stable neighbor.

Nearly two weeks ago the Obama administration announced that it was delaying approval of the Keystone pipeline as yet another study needed to be conducted (reminds me of governments pushing a topic into an endless series Royal Commission as a means to delay something unduly or even kill it without saying so). The Obama administration has made a misstep on this matter. Studies have been done which have addressed various environmental concerns.

True no pipeline is risk free of spills occurring. No off-shore or even on-shore, oil rig is risk free of spills, nor are tankers that come along our shores and to our ports. The hundreds of thousands of gasoline trucks that travel contain higher risks of that a modern pipeline using the state of the art technologies. Do we stop trucks from traveling the road, tankers bringing crude to our shores, or do we stop drilling? No. Instead we manage risk in a thoughtful manner by learning from past miscalculations and utilize the best technology that is reasonable.

Will the Obama’s administration stall the development of the Alberta oil sands? Anyone who is an opponent of the Keystone is badly mistaken if they think it will end or even slow down the development of the oil sands project. Let’s make no mistake the oil in the tar sands will be coming out of the ground! It is a matter of to whom will the oil be sold, to the USA or to Pacific Rim countries which have robust economies that rely heavily upon imported oil such as Japan, China and Australia.

The question Canada should be asking of the American administration is simple, is the United States prepared to take delivery of the oil within five years? If the answer is not yes, but maybe eventually after we study the matter further for a few more years, then the Canadian response should be straight forward…announce that Canada will sell elsewhere and to that end will be adding to its pipeline infrastructure to the west coast as Canada has made a commitment to sell its oil to Japan, China and other Pacific Rim countries. Of course the American reaction to loosing such a quantity of oil so close at hand will be negative. The Canadians can readily reply that America was the preferred buyer but when America was not willing to commit, Canada elected to allow the free market determine that the oil would be going to other countries.

For Canada there are two economic advantages for selling tar sands oil to China and Japan. Both countries are willing to pay a significantly higher price than the Americans. Hence, Canada would have more net income, some of which could be used to decrease the crude it sells for internal consumption. Lower internal crude prices would enable Canada to have lower gas prices than the US and thereby giving Canadian firms another competitive advantage as a result of lower energy costs. Also, the pipeline would travel further across Canadian soil and the tanker port would be on Canadian shores all of which mean more jobs for Canadians than would be an pipeline running to the USA.

Is Democracy At Risk? Can We Learn From Rome?

Last year’s trip to Italy rekindled an interest in refreshing my knowledge of the Roman Empire, a glorious empire that dominated the Meditation and much of “civilized” Europe. All empires go through a life cycle of rise and decline. Though causes for both the rise and decline of any empire are numerous and can be debated, with Rome the decline highly involves three primary factors:

a.  Corrupt leaders who used their positions to advance their own wealth and power as well as those of their family and friends

                b. Centralization of power in the hands of Caesar and the leaving the Senate marginalized as a paper tiger

                c.  A military industrial complex that increasingly dominated the society and the budget of the empire to the point where the military, and a handful of public works which more often than not were either military driven or designed to placate the poor with entertainment.

Threats from outside were real, but Rome declined due to internal reasons and when it moved away from what had given rise to the empire.

News reporters and commentators, and political leaders at all levels and of all persuasions in modern democracies need to be heedful of what happened in Rome. The citizenry likewise needs to be heedful of the lessons.

To remain vibrant and strong, modern democracies ensure that all branches of government civil discourse, freedom of information and the exchange of the same, and each branch in the checks and balance process are vibrant and well. Consolidating power in the hands of one or two leaders is unhealthy and moves any country down the Roman pathway.

When Congressmen, Senators (or MPs in Canada, England) are expected/required to fall in line behind their leadership (President, PM, House or Senate Leadership) on all but minor matters a democracy is under threat. Thinking that what is good for the party is good for the country is dangerous thinking…it is dangerous is like a driver driving at a high rate of speed and thinking that they are too skilled to have an accident. Party winning at all costs stifles independent thinking, civil discourse and undermines a democracy.

When a party membership is reluctant to call out its leadership for potentially immoral or criminal conduct, or when it gives them passes for what they would consider most unacceptable if done by those of the other party, democracy is under attack. When leaders say that their number one priority is to defeat the opposition in the next election and to obstruct as much of their other party’s agenda as possible, democracy is eroded and slipping away. The good of the country should never come above the good of the country. When an is attack, even ones the attacker had proposed in the past, primarily because it is put forward by the opposition, democracy is starting to become a shell.

When people are appointed to the judiciary, particularly to the highest court in the land, mainly because of narrow political beliefs on a handful of issues ranging from the highly questionable unitary executive doctrine to abortion, the checks and balances within that democracy is being lost. The court system, including the highest court, should not be used as an extension of a political position for if it were, not only is democracy threatened but so is justice itself.

Any country which does not give attention to lessons from the past is at risk of repeating the same mistakes. Are our democracies vibrant and on a sound footing? While for the most part they are solid, I fear that they may not be on as firm as we believe.     

Wisdom, Harper and Prorogue

I was going to give a short comment on Stephen’s blog and post of 2 December, but my thoughts kept going and going so I am posting the following. See Stephen’s post at http://searsfamilyhappenings.blogspot.com/.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has found himself in a mess of his choosing. It seems that he is governing as if he has a solid majority. If that it was the Conservative attitude prior to this crisis then they did recall the lessons learned from what happened to Joe Clark.

There is little doubt that the 27 November fiscal update/pre-budget statement is designed to be provocative and possibly draconian. In light of the international financial crisis, the government not putting forth a new budget until late February is a significant error. Not putting forth plans to help move the country forward and to shore up the economy is a mistake. The country is looking for leadership, not silence.

When the markets crashed in 1929, President Hoover too hoped everything would work itself out in four to six months. People looked to the government for leadership and action but none was forth coming from Hoover. His lack of leadership and taking no action to help stabilize matters helped to deepen the crash’s impact. Is Harper going down the same road as Hoover?

It seems to me Harper’s pre-budget statement is intended to challenge the opposition to acquiesce to its will or face the public wrath of forcing an election. He has proposed changes, to be followed with a full budget, that if one of the other parties acquiesced, which he may well have counted upon, will dramatically turn Canadian politics strongly to the right, and mirror much of the positions of the Republican right in the USA. Harper is playing a dangerous game of brinkmanship.

The elimination of the $1.95 subsidy/grant for each vote received increases the opportunity for the large parties to push aside the smaller parties. It seems to me that Harper is targeting the BQ and is an effort to turn them into a rump party. It also is an effort to decrease the power of the NDP. The proposal allows the major party to become more beholding to special interest groups and other major contributors.

In 1980 when Joe Clark’s minority government fell when it brought forth a budget that was too aggressive, which Crosby called “short term pain, for long term gain.” A friend of mine who was in the Clark government admitted later the PCs were too aggressive with that budget. He admitted that governing as if they had a majority government was also a mistake. They thought that if they were defeated on the budget the people would support them and return them with a majority. The miscalculated and misread the mood of the nation as Trudeau’s Liberals returned to power with a majority. I suspect that Harper has gone down the same road as Clark.

I like the idea of the Governor General not dissolving Parliament and instead giving a Liberal/NDP coalition government an opportunity to govern. Did Harper consider this likelihood? He had to given that he was willing to form such a coalition in 2003. If he did not think it would happen, then he has been injudicious and should find himself stewing as leader of the opposition while the other two parties outflank him with populist legislation.

Harper’s back-tracking and the possibility of asking the Governor General for a prorogue are signs that he and his government have miscalculated badly. Though a prorogue could last for a year, anything more than a month would be disastrous for Canada, particularly during an economic crisis since not orders-in-council or major policy initiatives could be undertaken. In essence, the government would be powerless to respond to a fluid economic period. Even a prorogation of more than four to six weeks could be putting the nation’s health at risk.

A prorogation that lasts more than a month starts to become a means for the Prime Minister and the government to avoid answering to the will and vote of Parliament, which a most dangerous road for a democracy to take. Though it such a vote is unpleasant, no government should ever unduly delay on a pending vote of non-confidence. To delay undermines the democratic process. Hence, when facing such a vote a request for a prorogue should be used sparingly.

By running ads attacking the idea of a coalition government, the Conservatives are being reactionary and suggesting that they are fighting to stay in power by any means. What is most interesting is that Harper was willing to form with the NDP just such a coalition government if Martin’s minority government fell within a few months if the 2004 election. He supported the concept then, but is strongly against it now that he is Prime Minister.

If there is an election in the coming months, the ads against a coalition government will shift the blame for a new election solely upon his shoulders. The other parties came up with a reasonable option to avoid an election but Harper and his team fought the idea.

A minority government that rules as if it had a strong majority has acted unwisely. In Westminster democracies, a Governor General inviting the opposition leader to form a coalition government after the fall of the government shortly after an election is not unreasonable or unheard of. Often the coalition will not be formed as there are too many differences, and when they are formed, most only live less than a year. Yet when they do work, the legislative course is thoughtful and balanced as the bills tend to have broad consensus.

If Harper and his team have calculated this badly, what does that then say about their judgment in an age when our nations need cool thoughtful reflective leadership.